4.4 Article

Clinical Outcome of Rebubbling for Graft Detachment After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty

期刊

CORNEA
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 771-776

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001220

关键词

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty; graft detachment; rebubbling; endothelial cell density; best-corrected visual acuity; pachymetry; air injection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the clinical outcome after successful rebubbling procedures for visually significant graft detachment after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Methods: From a total of 760 consecutive DMEK surgeries, 41 eyes required rebubbling. Of those, 33 eyes of 31 patients were successful and were included in our retrospective outcome analysis study. Main outcome measures were compared with those of matched controls with uneventful primary DMEK (attached DMEK grafts without rebubbling). Rebubbling was performed on average 25 (620) days (range 7-91 days) after DMEK. All eyes were evaluated for best-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell density (ECD), pachymetry, and complications up to 6 months after rebubbling. Results: At 6 months after DMEK, best-corrected visual acuity in rebubbled eyes did not differ from that in control eyes (P = 0.514). The mean ECD decrease was higher in rebubbled than in control eyes (54% vs. 35%, respectively, P = 0.001). Pachymetry did not differ between both groups (P = 0.153). After rebubbling, one buphthalmic eye showed temporary intraocular pressure elevation and 5 eyes had minor graft edge detachment that did not require further treatment. Conclusions: Rebubbling for DMEK graft detachment may result in similar visual outcomes as in uncomplicated DMEK, when performed within the first 6 to 8 postoperative weeks. However, rebubbled eyes may have lower ECD, which may be attributed to additional air bubble trauma and/or selection bias through more extensive manipulation during initial DMEK or higher risk of graft detachment in more complicated eyes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据